You are currently viewing PlanetSide Universe as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features.
By joining our web site you will have access to post topics in our public forums, communicate privately with other members via PM, request TeamSpeak access and more! Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, join the forums today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

ok, 99% of all my time spent in game i play infantry, i have to spend my resources on frag nades, flash bangs, concs, av nades, med kits, c4, claymores, av mines ,and you guys are complaining because now you have to deal with resource restrictions???? really?? all i can say is welcome to my world...

heck i think pilots and drivers should have to spend resources on smoke, flares,and fire suppression, to further restrict resources.then that mite bring the restriction resources on armor and air up to par with the infantry

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

Originally Posted by MrMak

I find it kind of ironic that for moths peopel have been complaining that mechanised and airspace resources dont matter and now that they do everyone suddenly realised someone might have an advantage if they do and that there are resource boosts.

Granted that a simple pricei ncrease was a lazy "revamp" but come on guys...make up your frigin minds.

Err, a good bunch of us made up their minds before release, when the whole subscription reward was discussed. Some of us said no to any resource boost.
But it never was a real problem, so there was no backup to push for a change. Now there is a small problem, and only little time left to change.

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

Well say they were to remove resource boosts. What hapenes to whose who already bought them and have them stored away to activate when they need them? Seriously doubt SOE would give thme a refund and if they had to thats jsut less motivation for them to get rid of them.

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

Originally Posted by MrMak

Well say they were to remove resource boosts. What hapenes to whose who already bought them and have them stored away to activate when they need them? Seriously doubt SOE would give thme a refund and if they had to thats jsut less motivation for them to get rid of them.

Change the to 100% XP boosts, refund, plenty of options really.

Its a moot point anyway, no reason to discuss what happens if and when and how and why. First of all SOMETHING needs to happen at all, in this case SOE seeing the problem they are running into before they run into it.

And i think that this thread i put up on the official forums, reddit and here served that purpose. Now its up to SOE to do something, or not.

In other words: I understand how agile development works. This thread is not a "DO THIS SOE OR I RAGEQUIT", more of a suggestion, with added discussion.

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

resources are gained from experience at a faster rate than resource over time, so resource boost and experience boost, in fact any experience boost from defense bonus, pop bonus, alert participation, etc, affects resource gain.

also you should remember that if you run out of resources spamming on indar, you can probably go to another continent and repair turrets or ghost cap for 20 minutes to fill back up.

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

Originally Posted by basti

In other words: I understand how agile development works. This thread is not a "DO THIS SOE OR I RAGEQUIT", more of a suggestion, with added discussion.

You understand how agile development works? Like how there is reduced quality in agile projects vs software engineered projects? How the developer-centric projects continually are "developed' into a corner because they dont' fully understand the complexities of architecture, proper testing, and proper documentation.

Hey I bought into it for a while myself, but the Agile movement is simply too chaotic for a longterm, sustained, lifecycle project.

Which is why I've always said that PS2 is simply a testing ground for ForgeLight. I don't believe that SOE even cares about the fate of PS2 in relation to EQ:Next. Some suckers are paying for this development (read: testing) and the EQ franchise will reap the benefits. Smokejumper is no fool and he and Smed are cashing in on all the FPS kiddies that wanna play on a huge arena map to fund his bug squashing before his project rolls out. I mean it's paid for testing.

I mean come on, look at all of the sweeping changes that have been made to this engine in such a short time. Right now, its a different game than Release, which was a different game than Beta, which was a different game than Alpha. Does any studio publish a game that takes on this many fully distinct mechanics? They're using the speed and flexibility of an Agile development model to push a wide variety of complexities into the enginee to see how it behaves, to push it (ForgeLight) to its limits. Not because they care about PS2 - they wanna run this horse (PS2) into the ground so they know what its capabilities are for EQ:Next. While in the background they're using a moderately paced and properly sized development team and functional QA staff for EQ:Next.

Sub numbers don't lie. How much money is EQ:Next going to bring in and with only 2 games running ForgeLight, which one do you thing will have more subs?

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

Originally Posted by kubacheski

You understand how agile development works? Like how there is reduced quality in agile projects vs software engineered projects? How the developer-centric projects continually are "developed' into a corner because they dont' fully understand the complexities of architecture, proper testing, and proper documentation.

Hey I bought into it for a while myself, but the Agile movement is simply too chaotic for a longterm, sustained, lifecycle project.

Which is why I've always said that PS2 is simply a testing ground for ForgeLight. I don't believe that SOE even cares about the fate of PS2 in relation to EQ:Next. Some suckers are paying for this development (read: testing) and the EQ franchise will reap the benefits. Smokejumper is no fool and he and Smed are cashing in on all the FPS kiddies that wanna play on a huge arena map to fund his bug squashing before his project rolls out. I mean it's paid for testing.

I mean come on, look at all of the sweeping changes that have been made to this engine in such a short time. Right now, its a different game than Release, which was a different game than Beta, which was a different game than Alpha. Does any studio publish a game that takes on this many fully distinct mechanics? They're using the speed and flexibility of an Agile development model to push a wide variety of complexities into the enginee to see how it behaves, to push it (ForgeLight) to its limits. Not because they care about PS2 - they wanna run this horse (PS2) into the ground so they know what its capabilities are for EQ:Next. While in the background they're using a moderately paced and properly sized development team and functional QA staff for EQ:Next.

Sub numbers don't lie. How much money is EQ:Next going to bring in and with only 2 games running ForgeLight, which one do you thing will have more subs?

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

Originally Posted by basti

Here, i think you need this:

ooooooooohhhhhh. that's pretty. That's much more form fitting than I'm used to. Will that help with the intercranial voices?

It is a perfect match to to the insulatory properties of the old microwave ovens I use to insulate the walls, floor and ceiling of my laboratory to elimiate outside influence from the em fields in our local area.

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

Originally Posted by VaderDSL

I don't have any numbers, but it'd be cool to have supply lines.

So a vehicle/aircraft will cost say 100 resources base (just one example, number not important).

At the warpgate it will be 75% reduced cost, so 25 resources.

At each step out of the lattice the cost reduction decreases, until at some point it is at 0% say 5 points out on the lattice (maybe make it so that the first big base in the lattice from the warpgate is at 0% resource modifier.

After this, any further steps out into the lattice you go the cost increases, until basically when you are pulling vehicles/aircraft from near the enemies WG you are at say 200% or more increase to costs due to distance from your warpgate.

This way you can revert the costs, but make it so that people being pushed back have vastly reduced costs while the attackers have to pay more, it would be balanced as the more territory = more resources but greater costs compared to less territory = less resources but reduced costs.

The stick a few controllable resource nodes around the place which would allow you to disrupt resource flow/links and would give more options for continent defenders, if you could hack a few control points to disrupt resource gain it would starve the attackers, they would have to re-secure in order to continue to gain resources up lattice of that control node.

This way attackers and defenders are balanced vehicle/aircraft wise, maybe apply it to infantry resources as well?

I really like this idea. It would even balance out the resource boosts. Everyone can always go back a few bases in order to get cheaper vehicles. Those with high resource income would be more likely to just grab from the front lines anyway, thereby spending more. The more frugal would take a bit longer getting to the front lines, but would still be able to pull vehicles more often.

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

Isnt the resource income linked to how you play and to a large extent who you play with?

The team have allready said that they want to prevent "spam" so as a solo player you shouldnt expect to pull max,max,max or reaver, reaver,reaver if your loosing them too quick.

However if your playing sensibly and as part of a team, you rotate the roles and should be able to keep up a constant stream of whatever your pulling. Max, HA, Engi, -> Max, HA, Engi is easily doable with the roles changing. In much the same way as a 3/3 Maxxed harraser can continualy be pulled if your not dieing within 10 mins.

With regards to the benefits of subs. Im finding less and less reasons to sub at the moment. I dont need XP/BR as its a pointless stat. I allready have more certs than I need and I spend them on stuff I dont use. My vehicles stay alive long enough that im pretty much maxed out when I need to buy a new one. So the only benefit I get is queue priority. Since the pop on Miller is poo this is only used at prime time during alerts.

With regards to boosts / alpha squad. We all had our alphas replaced at the same time. We all will have equiped them within a few days of each other, on the main chars we play. They will all run out around the same time. Im fully expecting an imba "NotQuiteAlphaSquad" boost to be on a 3 day sale for a limited time, that fulfills the same role.

Re: Lets talk about the resource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

I'm biased in that I love using vehicles (ESFs, tanks, etc.) in PS2. I think PS2 handles vehicle combat pretty well, all things considered (always room for improvement). However, I'm not a bug fan of infantry combat in PS2. I think it's handled rather clunky vs. other FPS in the market (BF3, COD, etc.).

With that said, I'm not a big fan of the vehicle resource changes of GU11. While I haven't had the pleasure of playing PS2 since GU11 was released, it doesn't take much imagination to see that SOE is trying to reduce the number of vehicles that get pulled, as well as the frequency of their use. Simply put, SOE is trying to make PS2 even more infantry-centric that it already was.

While I will give PS2 a chance and try it out post-GU11 when I get back from my business trip, I have a feeling that I will stop playing PS2 given the changes to vehicle resources in GU11.

Instead, I will spend my gaming time and money on other vehicle games like World of Warplanes, World of Tanks, War Thunder, World of Warships, etc.

It's a shame as I really enjoy the air/ground relationship that exists in PS2 but don't have the patience (given my limited gaming time) to play infantry for an extended period of time just to earn enough vehicle resources to play a vehicle).

Originally Posted by basti

A harsh statment, i know, but let me explain.

With the new resource prices for vehicles and Maxes, resources now actually matter. However, the resource bonus from boosts and Subscriptions screw greatly with the concept.

A total free player is pretty much shafted, a player with Auraxium Subscription and a resource boost has only small problems.

There are several ways to fix this:

A. We revert back to useless resources by making stuff cheap again. In the end, the whole resource system could be taken out then, as it would be entierly pointless.

B. we get rid of resource boosts, means everyone, regardless of how much money he spends, gets the same amount of resources.

Option A is easy to archive, but removes great potential for a deep metagame out of the game. We all want more meta and more strategy, so lets not go there.

Lets take a look at option B instead: Taking away a bonus subscribers get will be a pain in the ass, but the vast majority of subscribers would propably be okay with it, if not even happy, if we give them something nice in return. For once, they propably get a better game in return, with a deep metagame that involves not just continent locking and a global lattice (im sure this stuff is still coming, no reason to belive otherwise), as well as a deep resource system that affects the strategys we dream up.

However, people also want a direct compensation for the loss of the resource boost. So i suggest: Kill the resource boosts for subscribers, give them another 6 months XP boost.

As for the Alpha squad boost, i suggest it becomes a 100% XP boost with no resource boost. Most of the Alpha squad boosts are running out in 2 months or so anyway.

Re: Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

Originally Posted by VaderDSL

I don't have any numbers, but it'd be cool to have supply lines.

So a vehicle/aircraft will cost say 100 resources base (just one example, number not important).

At the warpgate it will be 75% reduced cost, so 25 resources.

At each step out of the lattice the cost reduction decreases, until at some point it is at 0% say 5 points out on the lattice (maybe make it so that the first big base in the lattice from the warpgate is at 0% resource modifier.

After this, any further steps out into the lattice you go the cost increases, until basically when you are pulling vehicles/aircraft from near the enemies WG you are at say 200% or more increase to costs due to distance from your warpgate.

This way you can revert the costs, but make it so that people being pushed back have vastly reduced costs while the attackers have to pay more, it would be balanced as the more territory = more resources but greater costs compared to less territory = less resources but reduced costs.

The stick a few controllable resource nodes around the place which would allow you to disrupt resource flow/links and would give more options for continent defenders, if you could hack a few control points to disrupt resource gain it would starve the attackers, they would have to re-secure in order to continue to gain resources up lattice of that control node.

This way attackers and defenders are balanced vehicle/aircraft wise, maybe apply it to infantry resources as well?

I also like this idea a lot! Post it somewhere where more can see it, in this thread it will probably be forgotten. I think it deserves to be discussed as its own topic for a solution to this!